At 15:40 +0100 29 Dec 2001, Michael Schmitz <schmitz@mail.biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
> That's what it looked like from the gdb trace. I'll keep your patch
> solution around - even where __va_copy is defined for other archs it
> should not hurt to use it and work on a copy of va_list, right?
Since archs that don't need __va_copy are passing va_lists by value
they're working on a copy already.
--
Aaron Schrab aaron@schrab.com http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/
"...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather
dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head."
-- Larry Wall